Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

If it was originally a flintlock, much of the resale value was already gone when it was made into a percussion cap firearm....

Actually that's wrong in this case. It was converted to percussion along with most of the armory's stock in the 1840's and 50's. It's most likely a Confederate Civil War piece. He really screwed up.

That is a good point... even converting a rifle depends on when it was converted. I was too general .... I would definitely be interested in finding out IF there were a way to positively track down whether that piece had been a CSA piece from the civil war (I know that with some firearms that are pre-serial numbers, origins can get sketchy beyond maker and rough timeframe for manufacture)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

That is a good point... even converting a rifle depends on when it was converted. I was too general .... I would definitely be interested in finding out IF there were a way to positively track down whether that piece had been a CSA piece from the civil war (I know that with some firearms that are pre-serial numbers, origins can get sketchy beyond maker and rough timeframe for manufacture)

Sometimes you can by armory stamps, or the year (guns were made more slowly back then, so a given year's production might have been bought by a handful of state arsenals). Some modifications are unique to the CSA, but it looks like this one was a straight up HF percussion conversion (any barrel treatments would, sadly, have just been sanded off by this guy.). Sometimes a person would carve their name on the stock (makes it easier to tell whose is whose in camp).

I need to take some pics of an 1813 Sutton musket that I think would knock a lot of your socks off one of these days.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with the 9mm Beretta Nano? Most of the reviews I've seen have been positive but I'm curious if any Dakkaites have any first-hand experience.

I have some. It grips allright and shoots just fine, but was awkwardly top heavy, like really top heavy.

Thanks! So you didn't like the top-heaviness? I had heard others mention it was somewhat top heavy but they also mentioned that it helped reduce muzzle flip.



To everyone: A question about aftermarket guide rods. I have seen that for a lot of pistols that come stock with polymer guide rods, you can get aftermarket stainless steel guide rods offered by other companies. Have any of you added stainless steel guide rods to your pistols? It seemed like it might be a cool idea and was considering giving it a try, because I know polymer rods can wear out and I have even heard stories that they can break over time, but I also want to make sure that adding a stainless steel part to replace a polymer part isn't going to cause some kind of unforeseen wear on the weapon. Any thoughts?

 Hordini wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with the 9mm Beretta Nano? Most of the reviews I've seen have been positive but I'm curious if any Dakkaites have any first-hand experience.

I have some. It grips allright and shoots just fine, but was awkwardly top heavy, like really top heavy.

Thanks! So you didn't like the top-heaviness? I had heard others mention it was somewhat top heavy but they also mentioned that it helped reduce muzzle flip.



To everyone: A question about aftermarket guide rods. I have seen that for a lot of pistols that come stock with polymer guide rods, you can get aftermarket stainless steel guide rods offered by other companies. Have any of you added stainless steel guide rods to your pistols? It seemed like it might be a cool idea and was considering giving it a try, because I know polymer rods can wear out and I have even heard stories that they can break over time, but I also want to make sure that adding a stainless steel part to replace a polymer part isn't going to cause some kind of unforeseen wear on the weapon. Any thoughts?

The top heaviness does help with recoil, but can make aiming a more awkward. That may just be a subjective thing to me however.

As for steel guide rods, my PX4 has a plastic rod, I've never had any issues with it, though I don't run around wearing it every day and am not shooting it weekly, so take that as you will. However, I feel that if a steel guide rod in most pistols were really necessary, they'd be included at the factory, that's just not something that's worth it to skimp on if it's truly a realistic failure point unless you're mucking with trying to take it apart or something. I've never heard an actual case of a plastic guide rod snapping without someone having done something stupid in the first place.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Actually in the case of Harper's Ferry muskets from the years before yours, it is, actually. The armory deliberately gave them patina to reduce rusting. 'Armory bright' does not exist for these. Please learn something about muskets before you do any more damage.

You're not serious, are you?

Firearms of the time came out of the armory in two ways

National Armory Brown
National Armory Bright.

http://www.nramuseum.org/guns/the-galleries/a-prospering-new-republic-1780-to-1860/case-12-us-military-arms,-1812-to-1848/us-harpers-ferry-model-1816-flintlock-musket.aspx

The former was a full blown browning process, as distinguishable from Armory Bright as night and day. Apparently you have no clue to either.

Nobody "applied a patina" to their weapons.

Sorry, but I'll listen to the adults instead of your pathetic arrogance.

Let's play nicely, everybody. We've got a good thread going here.

 Hordini wrote:
Let's play nicely, everybody. We've got a good thread going here.

Indeed. Play nice now.

Anvildude wrote:
I got a bit of a question for everyone- What exactly constitutes a "Carbine"? I thought for the longest time that it was a 'long gun' (that is, stock, two-hands, etc. etc) that fired pistol rounds, but was under a certain length, but I had a gun-nut buddy of mine say that it was something else.

A "carbine" is just a shorter version of a rifle. The rifles(carbines) I'd like to think I know a bit about are the 98 Mausers and Lee Enfields. The Original Gewehr 98 Mauser was 49" long then the Kar98 Mauser (Karabiner Carbine 98) was shortened to 42". Then for the Lee Enfield there is the MLE which was also 49" then the shorter one the "Smile Rifle" or the SMLE (Short, Magazine Lee Enfeild) was 44". The No. 5 Mk. 1 Jungle Carbine shortened the whole rifle down to 39". As far as I know, and please correct me if wrong, pistol caliber rifles where called SMGs until the civilian market got ahold of them and made semi auto versions and called them carbines to escape the "Machine Gun" part of that.

Many carbines shoot pistol rounds or reduced strength rifle rounds. Indeed, the AK's famous 7.62 is a shortened carbine round, not a true rifle round.

well, apart from my guard army and my marines and empire handgunners. i'm not aloud weaponry in my country....

DAMN YOU DAVID CAMERON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND DAMN YOU QUEEN ELIZABETH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 blood ravens addiction wrote:
well, apart from my guard army and my marines and empire handgunners. i'm not aloud weaponry in my country....

DAMN YOU DAVID CAMERON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND DAMN YOU QUEEN ELIZABETH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What was that? Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my freedom!

Just think of the money you are saving.

Yeah. That's actually a fair point. Gun control would have saved me 15-20k by now.

 Zad Fnark wrote:

National Armory Brown

What, pray tell, do you think this one is?


The browning process for a musket barrel starts as follows: The metal is first removed of all greasy impurities by washing with soap or detergent. Then plugs are added so the barrel sealed and only the outsides are rusted. The barrel is hung in the air and then the browning solution is thoroughly applied to the outside with a clean cloth or sponge. The barrel is left exposed in the air for about 24 hours, after which a thin layer of reddish brown rust is formed on the surface. After this, the barrel is "carded" by rubbing it with a hard brush or steel wool, which removes the acid from the surface. The whole process is repeated for two or three times to get the desired shade of reddish-brown finish on the barrel. The barrel is then cleaned and oiled (I like boiled linseed oil, myself).

The British would take this one step further and add a light varnish to the barrel containing Dragon's Blood, to give it the reddish tint in one go and make it somewhat glossy. (see General Regulations and Orders for the Army [1811])

If you want to cold blue the metal instead, dip it in boiling hot water before carding, as this stops the rusting process. The part turns a deep blue or black color instead of reddish brown. This is due to the black oxide of iron (Fe3O4) being formed instead of the red oxide of iron (Fe2O3).

So, yes, it's basically applying a patina to the exterior. You treat the metal with acid to produce a thin layer of oxidization that effectively treats the barrel against further oxidization.





Armory bright





The thing with armory bright is that it's actually very difficult, because it's actually more of a flat metallic grey, to produce. it was done at the time with a metal on metal buffing machine.

Armory Brown



Yes, I know this is a Brown Bess, but it gives readers a good idea of the look of a browned weapon.

 Ruberu wrote:

Anvildude wrote:
I got a bit of a question for everyone- What exactly constitutes a "Carbine"? I thought for the longest time that it was a 'long gun' (that is, stock, two-hands, etc. etc) that fired pistol rounds, but was under a certain length, but I had a gun-nut buddy of mine say that it was something else.

A "carbine" is just a shorter version of a rifle. The rifles(carbines) I'd like to think I know a bit about are the 98 Mausers and Lee Enfields. The Original Gewehr 98 Mauser was 49" long then the Kar98 Mauser (Karabiner Carbine 98) was shortened to 42". Then for the Lee Enfield there is the MLE which was also 49" then the shorter one the "Smile Rifle" or the SMLE (Short, Magazine Lee Enfeild) was 44". The No. 5 Mk. 1 Jungle Carbine shortened the whole rifle down to 39". As far as I know, and please correct me if wrong, pistol caliber rifles where called SMGs until the civilian market got ahold of them and made semi auto versions and called them carbines to escape the "Machine Gun" part of that.

Kudos, you got part of it right.

A carbine is a shorter version of a rifle.

But the concept of a carbine sharing a pistol caliber predates the SMG by a few hundred years.

Also, SMGs are legal to own in the US, provided you pay a $200 Tax Stamp and wait 6 months to a year for a painfully slow background check that would normally take minutes to accomplish. With the caveat that you can only purchase SMGs that were made on or before May 19 1986. Prices start around $20,000 for a 40+ year old M-16 that will shake like there's no tomorrow.

 djones520 wrote:

I don't own any handguns as of yet. I'd only really get them for personal defense, and living in Illinois I can't get a CCW just yet (maybe later this year they'll finally allow it), but I plan on buying a .45 ACP eventually, not sure yet exactly what brand. My supervisor owns The Judge for personal defense, and he's got me eyeing that as well. That is a nasty gun.

Out of curiosity why are you interested in getting the .45acp? Honestly all handgun calibers perform nearly the same, I'd recommend a 9mm for personal defense more rounds, less recoil.

pfft. I own a subcompact 9mm as my carry gun because it's way more concealable, but my far and away favorite handgun is the 1911. I think .45 ACP has such a satisfying feel compared to 9mm. It has a steady thud that just feels good to shoot. Just the right amount of recoil IMO. Yeah, 9mm has virtually no recoil, but it's also way less fun.

YMMV of course.

I plan on purchasing a G19 sometime in fall for the personal defense.

When I went pistol shopping Glock was at the top of my list. I personally didn't like how it felt in my hand so I went the other way, but it's a great gun even though it wasn't for me.

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

I don't own any handguns as of yet. I'd only really get them for personal defense, and living in Illinois I can't get a CCW just yet (maybe later this year they'll finally allow it), but I plan on buying a .45 ACP eventually, not sure yet exactly what brand. My supervisor owns The Judge for personal defense, and he's got me eyeing that as well. That is a nasty gun.

Out of curiosity why are you interested in getting the .45acp? Honestly all handgun calibers perform nearly the same, I'd recommend a 9mm for personal defense more rounds, less recoil.

This is America dagnabit! Buy both!

All handgun calibers dont nearly perform nearly the same:



Rather, it's shot placement that will be more telling.

That said, Id prefer a 9MM over a 45ACP mostly because of capacity. Each round is a "chance" at achieving the result I want. A 9MM double stack gives me more chances than a single stack 45.

Now, if the flavors were 40S&W or 45ACP, id go with 45ACP every day, twice on Sunday. Technically the 45 has a stronger recoil, but in the real world the 45 is a heavier bullet, and it's recoil impulse is more of a push than the the snap and upwards climb of a 40 caliber pistol. Follow-up shots are more achievable firing 45ACP as opposed to 40S&W. My chances of hitting my target with the first shot are better shooting the 45 instead of the 40.

All things aside, my EDC is now a Glock 26 using Glock 17 mags. The 1911 was killing my hips by the end of the day. The 26 weighs next to nothing...

Speaking for myself I don't like .40 at all. It looks pretty good on paper but man, I found it to be wholly unpleasant to shoot, very snappy.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
I plan on purchasing a G19 sometime in fall for the personal defense.

Open carry or conceal carry?

They perform very similar in terms of actual damage. So much so that many ER surgeons can not tell the difference between wounds caused by 9 say versus a 45

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

I don't own any handguns as of yet. I'd only really get them for personal defense, and living in Illinois I can't get a CCW just yet (maybe later this year they'll finally allow it), but I plan on buying a .45 ACP eventually, not sure yet exactly what brand. My supervisor owns The Judge for personal defense, and he's got me eyeing that as well. That is a nasty gun.

Out of curiosity why are you interested in getting the .45acp? Honestly all handgun calibers perform nearly the same, I'd recommend a 9mm for personal defense more rounds, less recoil.

This is America dagnabit! Buy both!

All handgun calibers dont nearly perform nearly the same:



Rather, it's shot placement that will be more telling.

That said, Id prefer a 9MM over a 45ACP mostly because of capacity. Each round is a "chance" at achieving the result I want. A 9MM double stack gives me more chances than a single stack 45.

Now, if the flavors were 40S&W or 45ACP, id go with 45ACP every day, twice on Sunday. Technically the 45 has a stronger recoil, but in the real world the 45 is a heavier bullet, and it's recoil impulse is more of a push than the the snap and upwards climb of a 40 caliber pistol. Follow-up shots are more achievable firing 45ACP as opposed to 40S&W. My chances of hitting my target with the first shot are better shooting the 45 instead of the 40.

All things aside, my EDC is now a Glock 26 using Glock 17 mags. The 1911 was killing my hips by the end of the day. The 26 weighs next to nothing...

Won't +P and hollow points help mitigate against the difference in the rounds?

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
I plan on purchasing a G19 sometime in fall for the personal defense.

Open carry or conceal carry?

Open until I get my concealed, I live in VA so I can open carry without permit until I get a concealed

 Ouze wrote:
Speaking for myself I don't like .40 at all. It looks pretty good on paper but man, I found it to be wholly unpleasant to shoot, very snappy.

Me too, cant stand the 40.

The 40 Soft&Weak was the compromise made from the afterbirth of the 10MM. FBI agents couldnt qualify using the 10MM due to excessive recoil, so the 40 was developed to bridge a gap between the then ineffective ball 9MM rounds and the 10MM caliber cartridge.

The 9 performs much better presently because of the development of better bullets.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

This picture is pretty meaningless unless we know what kind of bullets are being used. Is it FMJ? JHP? What is the bullet weight? What is the target made of? Paper? Cardboard? Ballistic gel?


All of the seriously negative criticism about the 9mm (low power, over penetration, etc.) is pretty much exclusively reserved for the 9mm FMJ round. Modern, defensive 9mm JHP perform excellently and I would argue that their capability as a self-defense round is just as good (if not better, due to reduced recoil and higher capacity) as any of the other common calibers.

 Hordini wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

This picture is pretty meaningless unless we know what kind of bullets are being used. Is it FMJ? JHP? What is the bullet weight? What is the target made of? Paper? Cardboard? Ballistic gel?


All of the seriously negative criticism about the 9mm (low power, over penetration, etc.) is pretty much exclusively reserved for the 9mm FMJ round. Modern, defensive 9mm JHP perform excellently and I would argue that their capability as a self-defense round is just as good (if not better, due to reduced recoil and higher capacity) as any of the other common calibers.

This is the argument my buddy who is a Firearms instructor and the owner of a modern gun-fighting business makes over and over again, he says he usually doesn't win lol as people seem very set in their ways. However he's the reason I'm going with the G19 and since I firmly believe he has 1000+ the knowledge I have I'll trust him.

About caliber:

The thing I like to tell folks who buy their first gun is practice, practice, practice.

Don't buy a gun and shoot like 20 rounds then keep it in the safe. It's only useful if your safe, proficient and comfortable with it.

That said, if you get something like a .45 (Long) Colt, or a 45 ACP, or a .357 Magnum or even a .40, it may not see as much range time as the ubiquitous and easy to shoot 9mm.

So I'd recommend a 9mm to anyone starting out.

 Hordini wrote:
All of the seriously negative criticism about the 9mm (low power, over penetration, etc.) is pretty much exclusively reserved for the 9mm FMJ round. Modern, defensive 9mm JHP perform excellently and I would argue that their capability as a self-defense round is just as good (if not better, due to reduced recoil and higher capacity) as any of the other common calibers.

My beef wit them (other than overpen) is that it doesn't have the right feel for me. The one's I've tried always felt too fragile. There's something reassuring about that big assed chunk of 1911 in your hands, something that says 'I will stop the target if I am needed'.

But people should go with a weapon that feels best for them. A powerful handgun isn't any good if you can't hit anything from the recoil.

my favorite caliber is shot placement